140 "JUST AND REASONABLE " CONDITIOXS. 



to the plain meaning of the language without implying 

 any limitation or exception not expressed. (a) In judging of 

 it, all the circumstances of the contract and transit will be 

 considered ; such — e.g., as the conduct of the sender and 

 his servants who accompany the horse sent by rail. (6) The 

 leading case on this point with regard to horses is M'Manus 

 V. Lancashire c5 Yorkshire Railway Company.{c) A horse 

 was placed by the railway in a truck wdiich was insufficient. 

 In the journey the horse put its foot through a hole in the 

 floor, by Avhich it Avas injured, and the case turned upon 

 the reasonableness of the following condition : — This ticket 

 is issued, subject to the owner's undertaking " all risks of 

 conveyance, loading, and unloading whatsoever, as the com- 

 pany will not be responsible for any injury or damage (how- 

 ever caused) occurring to live stock of any description 

 travelling upon the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Com- 

 pany, or in their vehicles." The Court found this condition 

 neither just nor reasonable ; and Justice "Williams observed : 

 — "It is unreasonable that the company should stipulate for 

 exemption from liability, from the consequence of their own 

 negligence, however gross, or misconduct, however flag- 

 rant. "(cZ) Again, a condition that a company shall not be 

 liable for any damage or delay "in any case," has been held 

 unreasonable, (e) Thus, also, a condition that a company is 

 not to be answerable for " any consequences arising from 

 over carriage, detention, or delay in, or in relation to, the. 

 conveying or delivery of said animals, however caused," was 

 held unreasonable, (/) and Chief Justice Cockburn observed: 

 — " It might, perhaps, be reasonable if they had given the 

 plaintiff the choice of two rates, and had made a special 



(«) M'Nally v. L. d: Y. Ry. Co., 1880, 8 L.ll., Ir. Ex. App. 81. 

 (6) Rain v. G. d.- S.-W. Ry. Co., 1869, 7 M. 439. 



(c) M'Mamts v. L. d- Y. Ry. Co., 1859, 4 H. and N. 327. 



(d) § 110, see also Paxton v. iV. B. Ry. Co., 1870, 9 M. bO ; and Rooth v. 

 N.-E. Ry. Co., 1867, L.R. 2 Ex. 173. 



(c) Ashcndon v. L. B. d- S. C. Ry. Co., 1880, L.R. 5 Ex. D. 190 ; Harrison and 

 Gregory, cit. p. 139. 



(/) Allday v. G. cO ir. A^. Co., 1864, 34 L.J., Q B. 5. 



